tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post6752555537764220545..comments2015-03-30T23:23:02.183-07:00Comments on PHILANTHROPY 2173: 2007 Buzzword #10 - Philanthropy 2.0Lucy Bernholzhttps://plus.google.com/107392821045682581198noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-76402019287875902252008-01-02T14:00:00.000-08:002008-01-02T14:00:00.000-08:00MichelleThank you for clarifying. Holden and I dis...Michelle<BR/><BR/>Thank you for clarifying. <BR/><BR/>Holden and I discussed my taking a seat on the Board on June 12. As I had not yet met any of the other Board members, I agreed only to call into the upcoming meeting. I accepted a spot on the board when I was appointed at the June 22 Board meeting.<BR/> <BR/>I reviewed my appointment calendar to provide the above dates. I have also reviewed the HuffPo blogging “deal” (http://blogger.huffingtonpost.com/archive/2005/05/bloggers-faq.php) which - as far as I can tell - raises no flags about my disclosure practices. I will be sure to keep my bio on HuffPo updated with a current list of affiliations. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucy-bernholz/#blogger_bio)<BR/><BR/>ThanksLucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-1501354010231073142008-01-02T12:37:00.000-08:002008-01-02T12:37:00.000-08:00But the question being asked is also pertinent to ...But the question being asked is also pertinent to a fair evaluation of GiveWell: on what date did you accept the nomination to the GiveWell board?Michelle Moonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-827822125391218372008-01-02T12:33:00.000-08:002008-01-02T12:33:00.000-08:00MichelleThe pertinent question is did I fail to di...Michelle<BR/><BR/>The pertinent question is did I fail to disclose a pertinent relationship with GiveWell in the HuffPo post on June 4 2007. I did not. <BR/><BR/>At the time of that post I did fail to disclose that I had spoken with the founders of that organization on the phone - which I understood to be only as worthy of disclosure as the other affiliations I had at the time. Since the post mentioned GiveWell in conjunction with LinkedIn, Facebook and other sites I have since disclosed my similary distant affiliations with those organizations (phone calls, accounts, site usage, etc.), been raked over the coals as an idiot for doing so, and am trying to be more forthcoming about my disclosures.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-53385423026097144232008-01-02T12:10:00.000-08:002008-01-02T12:10:00.000-08:00You have not answered the pertinent question. You ...You have not answered the pertinent question. You still have not given the date upon which you were formally offered a seat on GiveWell's board. <BR/><BR/>Was that in one of the two phone conversations that took place before your promotion of GiveWell in the Huffington Post?<BR/><BR/>Or did it take place at some time after the last phone conversation but before the first board meeting?<BR/><BR/>I understand you're attempting to clear your name, but this is the information you need to clarify in order to do so.Michelle Moonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-61104379067650117192008-01-02T09:57:00.000-08:002008-01-02T09:57:00.000-08:00Anonymous:I have answered your question above - at...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>I have answered your question above - at the time of the HuffPo post I had had phone conversations with the founders. I did not reveal that in the HuffPo post. You are correct, I did not reveal that I had spoken to them on the phone. Because you seem to think that it was inappropriate for me to omit this, I went on to disclose all of the other, similar connections I had to the other organizations mentioned in the post at the time that the post was made. <BR/><BR/><BR/>The first Board meeting of GiveWell took place on June 22, as you have correctly noted from your review of the publicly posted meeting minutes. Board members and officers were appointed at that board meeting. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, referring to the early June HuffPo post, I had identified the specific relationship that went beyond phone calls or account usage to the single organization that was a focus in the post. That organization is YouthGive, and as noted I was (and am) on their advisory board. <BR/><BR/>If you have further need of clarification on this matter, I would appreciate the courtesy of having you identify yourself, to me and others on this site, and to contact me directly for any further clarification.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-91732272809718940852008-01-02T07:35:00.000-08:002008-01-02T07:35:00.000-08:00lucy bernholz said...Prior to the June GiveWell Bo...lucy bernholz said...<BR/>Prior to the June GiveWell Board meeting I had had two phone conversations with the founder. I was asked to join the board and agreed to do so at the June Board meeting, which I attended by phone. At the time of the HuffPo column I could have revealed that I have, at various times, had conversations with the founders of GiveWell, GlobalGiving, and have used Network For Good to make charitable donations. As a Board Member of CompuMentor I was also affiliated with Netsquared, I have an account at Schwab, have worked with the Giving Forum, regularly use Craigslist, YouTube, and LinkedIn, and am on Facebook.<BR/><BR/><BR/>This just doesn't make sense to me. First there is the non-denial that you knew you would become a member of GiveWell's board when she wrote about them without disclosure on Huffington Post. Please clarify the timing of when you were first offered a position on the board. My impression is that you conducted the same deceptive marketing techniques as Holden.<BR/><BR/>Then there is rambling misdirection (nobody is accusing you of astroturfing for Facebook). <BR/><BR/>Per standard procedure and GiveWell's operating agreement, changes to the Board of Directors requires a majority vote by the board.<BR/><BR/>And for any startup organization, especially one that values transparency, there are few bigger changes than changes to the Board. <BR/><BR/>How could GiveWell make changes to the Board and not feel compelled to mention that? <BR/><BR/>In light of the fact that there are meeting minutes of the June board meeting, why is there no indication a vote for approving new board members was taken? Has anyone at GiveWell even read the operating agreement or were you too busy approving salaries?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-52212003176485716632008-01-02T07:34:00.000-08:002008-01-02T07:34:00.000-08:00I'm impressed at the way you've responded since th...I'm impressed at the way you've responded since the criticisms of your first response have come in, Lucy. We're all still working out how real, professional, accountable discourse will happen online, and where the lines will be drawn between public and private matters. You've had the good luck to become a test case, and a lot of people are watching this unfold.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-42817350325494695382008-01-01T22:03:00.000-08:002008-01-01T22:03:00.000-08:00Prior to the June GiveWell Board meeting I had had...Prior to the June GiveWell Board meeting I had had two phone conversations with the founder. I was asked to join the board and agreed to do so at the June Board meeting, which I attended by phone. At the time of the HuffPo column I could have revealed that I have, at various times, had conversations with the founders of GiveWell, GlobalGiving, and have used Network For Good to make charitable donations. As a Board Member of CompuMentor I was also affiliated with Netsquared, I have an account at Schwab, have worked with the Giving Forum, regularly use Craigslist, YouTube, and LinkedIn, and am on Facebook. <BR/><BR/>As the Huffington Post column you cite was focused on YouthGive, and as I had already been named to and accepted a post on their advisory board, I noted that in the post. I have tried to be clear and public about my affiliations. <BR/> <BR/>I think the above covers the organizations noted, but if you have questions about my relationships to any of the other companies or organizations mentioned in that post, or others, please inquire.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-1283071529844862312008-01-01T21:25:00.000-08:002008-01-01T21:25:00.000-08:00Ms Bernholz, when did you become a board member at...Ms Bernholz, when did you become a board member at GiveWell? Was it before June 4, 2007, when you wrote this post on Huffington Post mentioning GiveWell, recommending them without saying anything about your affiliation with the organization?<BR/>posted 8:03 PM on Lucy Bernholz's blog<BR/><BR/>In response:<BR/>Lucy Bernholz said...<BR/>I became a board member of GiveWell at the organization's first Board meeting in June of 2007. All of my professional and volunteer affiliations are online in my company bio and my posted bios.<BR/>posted 8:20 PM on Lucy Bernholz's blog<BR/><BR/>Only the question of when you became a member isn't answered in any of you bio blurbs that I could find. The board meeting was June 22, but doesn't document you becoming a board member. Rather it seems you were already on the board. Perhaps the record just isn't as transparent as one might hope.<BR/><BR/>But I'm still wondering were you astroturfing on Huffington Post? Were you already or did you know you would become a member of of the GiveWell board when you published the Huffington Post column?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-15450075633247878852008-01-01T21:15:00.000-08:002008-01-01T21:15:00.000-08:00Thank you - to those who have consistently focused...Thank you - to those who have consistently focused the discussion on the depth of the transgressions, the implications for accountability, and have patiently helped me navigate archived conversations. Your attention to the issues and its implications are appropriate, helpful, and appreciated. I take my board responsibilities seriously and will pursue these concerns.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-39629423753013607122008-01-01T21:14:00.000-08:002008-01-01T21:14:00.000-08:00I must remain anonymous because of my TRUTHINESS. ...I must remain anonymous because of my TRUTHINESS. <BR/><BR/>(And I have worked for organizations that are linked to on the givewell.net site.)<BR/><BR/>So what if Bob Elliott doesn’t tip at his favorite glory hole, he’s a humanitarian for what he does here.<BR/><BR/>And maybe Lucy Bernholz shouldn’t be traipsing to Nigeria on sex tourism junkets on the givewell.net expense account, but she has made contributions to society here.<BR/><BR/>And we can all agree that Tim Ogden should be more considerate of the role that baby-daddy is supposed to play in Southeast Asia, but he’s a very busy guy doing the important work of sitting on the givewell.net board of directors.<BR/><BR/>The important fact to keep in mind is that it is Metafilter.com, BoingBoing.net, and Luxist.com who are the real douchebags here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-75473720700288247222008-01-01T20:57:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:57:00.000-08:00Thank you, Lucy. Being straightforward is importan...Thank you, Lucy. Being straightforward is important -- I'm sure we'll be watching carefully to see what the followup is. Keep in mind that some people will have their pitchforks at the ready, but that most of us are simply wondering if you're willing to stand behind your expression of contrition.<BR/><BR/>Holden botched the matter right out of the gate by being shifty -- that doesn't make him instantly guilty, it just shifts the burden of honesty and straightforwardness squarely into your court. If you are as serious about your project as you claim to be, hopefully that will win out in the end.Ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15572454480940962027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-38339398829507412052008-01-01T20:51:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:51:00.000-08:00Lucy, in case you had missed the most egregious (i...Lucy, in case you had missed the most egregious (in my opinion) aspect: it is established that Holden has attacked several other charities on popular websites, using a pseudonym. This is absurd behaviour for the chief exec of a nonprofit, and the board ought to react accordingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-18286000180731081912008-01-01T20:36:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:36:00.000-08:00Here's where we seem to be:1. Holden made mistakes...<EM>Here's where we seem to be:<BR/><BR/>1. Holden made mistakes and has apologized.</EM><BR/><BR/>Holden engaged in highly unethical promotion of an allegedly transparent nonprofit, and said "Hey, sorry about that, I've been tired lately."<BR/><BR/><EM>2. The community at MetaFilter has shown it can and will enforce its own, clearly-published rules.</EM><BR/><BR/>Yes. But the rules of MetaFilter are not the central issue here, as has been stated several times, most eloquently by one of the site's mods.<BR/><BR/><EM>3. Online communities can be powerful forces for holding high the best standards of truth-telling. They, and their rules, should be respected.</EM><BR/><BR/>Sure, but again, not the issue. If Holden were just a blog rules-violating ass, no one would be here having this conversation now. They'd boot his ass, hurl a few pitchforks, and move on.<BR/><BR/><EM>4. Organizations are worth only as much as the integrity of their people and their collective action. Anything that jeopardizes the highest standards of integrity is trouble.</EM><BR/><BR/>Now we're nudging to the real issue. Holden stands for your organization, and his tactics speak to how your nonprofit is run.<BR/><BR/><EM>5. Beyond the bounds of specific online communities, operating within the parameters of clearly stated rules, I am personally troubled by anonymous posts that refer to comments/conversations that have been removed from the web. In the offline universe, these behaviors are prevented by rules that allow for the accused to face their accusers and the basic rules of evidence - what are the online protections?</EM><BR/><BR/>Holden's own words are what indict him. The fact that I'm posting here as middleclasstool and not Matt Reed doesn't change that he did what he did, and there's a trail. The deleted comments you refer to are gone because MetaFilter members alerted those site owners that Holden was astroturfing for your company, so they pulled them. Contact the site admins, see if they keep deleted comments in their database. But meanwhile, try not to make this sound like poor Holden made a minor boo-boo and the Big Bad Anonymous Internet is ganging up on him. This is to your benefit and the benefit of the people who run the sites where he pulls this crap -- <EM>we thought you might want to know that you have an unethical employee who reflects badly on your organization</EM>. Clear enough?<BR/><BR/><EM>While I know that efforts at "bloggers' codes of conduct" have floundered, I find myself wondering where the bounds are between self-policing and vigilantism?</EM><BR/><BR/>Well, see, you're dipping into a deep pool there, when you start asking questions like that. We could spend months here discussing the ethics of online identity, self-promotion, etc. Fact is these codes seem to be emerging organically within specific contexts, and self-policing seems to be doing the job. <BR/><BR/>Sure, some of the people who have responded to Holden's horribly stupid actions have done so out of malice and spite, but at least as many had legitimate concerns for your company and the entire philanthropic community at large, not to mention the other web admins who got their sites spammed by your wunderkind.<BR/><BR/>In short, your question is valid, but nobody's beaten up Holden or anything. Nobody's done anything but tell the truth about him, and as one of GiveWell's board members, I guess an appropriate response would be at least an acknowledgment that you want to hear about such things regarding your staff.middleclasstoolhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09452082859577976245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-7252219210996394082008-01-01T20:27:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:27:00.000-08:00I agree, the practices of astroturfing and misrepr...I agree, the practices of astroturfing and misrepresenting one's identity (which is simply known as fraud offline) are deceptive and unacceptable.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-47679520123347448292008-01-01T20:23:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:23:00.000-08:00I am not defending what was done. I am questioning...I am not defending what was done. <BR/><BR/>I am questioning anonymous bloggers on this site.<BR/><BR/>I was unaware that "removed comments" can be found by clicking through on MetaFilter - thank you for explaining this to me.<BR/><BR/>My first comment on this issue, in response to the comment that brought this my attention, was made without examination of MetaFilter - as it states.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-56047138525257239202008-01-01T20:20:00.001-08:002008-01-01T20:20:00.001-08:00I became a board member of GiveWell at the organiz...I became a board member of GiveWell at the organization's first Board meeting in June of 2007. All of my professional and volunteer affiliations are online in my company bio and my posted bios.Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-20462157307704982402008-01-01T20:20:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:20:00.000-08:00Please explain why it is that more than 50% of Giv...Please explain why it is that more than 50% of Givewell's budget goes to salaries for these completely inexperienced and thoroughly dishonest hucksters.Jeffreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15856826036856871065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-89197976284350322592008-01-01T20:16:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:16:00.000-08:00With you as a board member of the organization try...With you as a board member of the organization trying to paper this over as a case of misrepresentation rather than the outright deception as it clearly is, GiveWell.net is obviously unworthy of anyone's trust that it will police <I>itself</I> so yeah we feel a need to be the vigilant ones. Vigilantism is entirely called for in this situation and it boggles my mind that you, to all appearances an authority on philanthropy, are asserting that this incident is something which should be kept low-profile and be quickly forgotten.From the Deep Nethttp://www.metafilter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-72621800075533127012008-01-01T20:13:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:13:00.000-08:00I am personally troubled by anonymous posts that r...<I>I am personally troubled by anonymous posts that refer to comments/conversations that have been removed from the web.</I><BR/><BR/>Nothing has been removed from MetaFilter -- Ask MetaFilter threads are just delinked from the front page, not deleted. It's the first link in the MetaTalk post, and you can find it <A HREF="http://ask.metafilter.com/79762/Finding-a-highperformance-charity#comment" REL="nofollow">here</A> as well.<BR/><BR/>If you're talking about other sites, I'm not sure why that's relevant, but I can provide you with saved versions of the pages or Google cache links if verification is a concern. <BR/><BR/>Are you worried that you can't personally verify what was posted on those other sites, or that the online community can't? Since all of the comments on all of the sites were more or less identical, I don't think that's a response you want to rely on.Ahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15572454480940962027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-2271908988436939742008-01-01T20:03:00.000-08:002008-01-01T20:03:00.000-08:00Ms Bernholz, when did you become a board member at...Ms Bernholz, when did you become a board member at GiveWell? Was it before June 4, 2007, when you wrote <A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lucy-bernholz/everyone-gives_b_50497.html" REL="nofollow">this post on Huffington Post mentioning GiveWell</A>, recommending them without saying anything about your affiliation with the organization? Before February 21, 2007, when you wrote <A HREF="http://philanthropy.blogspot.com/2007/02/givewellnet.html" REL="nofollow">this glowing endorsement of GiveWell on your blog</A> without mentioning a possible conflict?amy petersonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-5883126406280939662008-01-01T19:59:00.000-08:002008-01-01T19:59:00.000-08:00"Highest standards of integrity"? Astroturfing is ..."Highest standards of integrity"? Astroturfing is deception. That violates a <B>basic</B> standard of integrity. Holden and Elie have posted stuff all over the internet in blatant disregard of any sense of integrity. You still seem to see this as a case of "self-promotion" but creating fake online identities is no more a legitimate form of promotion than spamming is. You keep dwelling on Metafilter commenters writing anonymously, but many of us are not.mattbucherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03367974601659173269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-28884076113358321882008-01-01T19:56:00.000-08:002008-01-01T19:56:00.000-08:00Lucy- Regardless of what I think about GiveWell, g...Lucy- <BR/><BR/>Regardless of what I think about GiveWell, given Holden and Elie's spammy outing, thanks for honestly looking into it and reading about what happened. However, it would have been a lot better had you done so before, well, putting your foot in your mouth with your first comment.<BR/><BR/>Re: your 5th point<BR/><BR/>If you're referring to MetaFilter comments as anonymous, they're not wholly anonymous. Posters (a lot of them? I'm not sure, as I'm not a mod) can be contacted by internal mail and sometimes external email. They (often?) include their names in their profiles; I do.<BR/><BR/>If you're referring to posts here on your blog specifically, I guess that's another matter entirely. However, at least the handful of ones above mine aren't using anonymity to direct traffic and/or business to their own enterprise.<BR/><BR/><I>Left the URL field blank because unlike what seems like 90% of the world I don't have a blog.</I>Chrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-82710157988974548312008-01-01T19:51:00.000-08:002008-01-01T19:51:00.000-08:00This is not vigilantism. Holden's "accusers" here...This is not vigilantism. Holden's "accusers" here are an entire community, some of us identified and some anonymous for reasons you should become familiar with -- or Holden should: a careful attention to the salience of our online lives to our professional ones.<BR/><BR/>I am the original anonymous poster in these comments, and I am no ranting vigilante. <BR/><BR/>What Holden did -- and Elie as well, if you will check the Metafilter thread -- was dishonest conduct. It directly belies the representation of GiveWell and these two characters in the prominent mainstream media pieces of the last few weeks. At best it was stupid behavior for a professional, the kind that would cost many young professionals their jobs.<BR/><BR/>You, as a Board member, have a professional responsibility here to, which must entail making no excuses for what has gone on here, including the backhanded excuse of implying the accusers are over-heated. Some of us are. Some are not.<BR/><BR/>I know I am not. And none of the record, by the way, has actually been deleted. The very first link n the Metafilter MetaTalk thread will take you to an archived copy of the original offending posts that revealed Holden's deception on MetaFilter, but led to the discovery of many other deceptive postings on other sites.<BR/><BR/>You need a damage control consultant here if this Givewell project is a serious one. You had a fortune in mainstream press coverage handed to you over the last few weeks premised on admiration for the character of Holden and Elie. Now that has been called into question, and that press coverage will become less valuable the higher this episode rises on the radar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3614581.post-37123188514425828232008-01-01T19:31:00.000-08:002008-01-01T19:31:00.000-08:00Thank you to people from MetaFilter for explaining...Thank you to people from MetaFilter for explaining certain elements of this to me. After checking into MetaFilter myself, its also clear that "blatant self promotion" is clearly discouraged and should not have been attempted. Its also now clear to me that it is not what happened - instead it was a case of mis-representation of himself and his affiliation. This is downright stupid, shortsighted, and will invariably come back to bite you in your ass wherever it is attempted - online or off. It was dumb, discrediting, and damning.<BR/><BR/>Here's where we seem to be:<BR/><BR/>1. Holden made mistakes and has apologized.<BR/><BR/>2. The community at MetaFilter has shown it can and will enforce its own, clearly-published rules.<BR/><BR/>3. Online communities can be powerful forces for holding high the best standards of truth-telling. They, and their rules, should be respected. <BR/><BR/>4. Organizations are worth only as much as the integrity of their people and their collective action. Anything that jeopardizes the highest standards of integrity is trouble. <BR/><BR/>5. Beyond the bounds of specific online communities, operating within the parameters of clearly stated rules, I am personally troubled by anonymous posts that refer to comments/conversations that have been removed from the web. In the offline universe, these behaviors are prevented by rules that allow for the accused to face their accusers and the basic rules of evidence - what are the online protections?<BR/><BR/>While I know that efforts at "bloggers' codes of conduct" have floundered, I find myself wondering where the bounds are between self-policing and vigilantism?Lucy Bernholzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09253941214286179394noreply@blogger.com